Richard III and the Princes in the Tower

[stacey]

OOOHHHH I would love to see that! But I live thousands of miles from Australia--think if I hopped a plane right this minute I could make it in time to see the show?!   Yeah, well, probably not...*sigh* will you good kind Aussies on the board please please watch it for us and tell us all about it right away? I would love to know what everyone on the show said and thought--and also what your own reactions to it are!! *sob* I never get to watch any really interesting stuff on TV *Stacey wanders off in tears*    

[maggie_moo]

I saw the documentary last night, it was really good and portrayed Richard in a good light (for all you Ricardians out there it was a good documentary!) But it did say that he probably did kill the Princes, but out of necessity. It also said that Edward IV was illegitimate.

[Kimberly]

Thanks for that Maggie Moo, cool name by the way

[PssMarieAmelie]

I saw the documentary last night, it was really good and portrayed Richard in a good light (for all you Ricardians out there it was a good documentary!) But it did say that he probably did kill the Princes, but out of necessity. It also said that Edward IV was illegitimate.

Yep--that's how I saw it...Dunno about the whole Edward IV thingo though... :-/


Very cool name Maggie_Moo. What part of Oz do you live in?? I'm in SA.

[maggie_moo]

Lol thanks for the name comments! I'm from Victoria

[ilyala]

i thought to revive this old topic as part of my 'revelations after reading on google books' phase. i remember i had quite a debate on this subject with arianwen and she at some point use as argument (on him not killing the princes) the fact that elizabeth woodville trusted him enough to give prince richard in custody to him.

here's an interesting quote i've come across, from agnes strickland "Lives of the Queens of England, from the Norman Conquest":

"Gloucester's next object was to get posession of prince Richard, then safe with the queen. After a long and stormy debate, between the ecclesiastical peers and the temporal peers, it was decided that there might be sanctuary men andr women, but as children could commit no crime for which an asylum was needed, the privileges of sanctuary could not extend to them; therefore the duke of Gloucester, who was now recognized as lord-protector, could posess himself of his nephew by force if he pleased."

tbh, i don't see any source for this quote (the bolded part is a quote in the book)... so does anyone know anything more on this subject? (all you yorkists out there seem to know quite a lot on richard, maybe you remember anything on this topic). because if the quote is correct, the church simply allowed richard to take his nephew by denying him right of sanctuary, therefore elizabeth woodville did not 'entrust' him into his uncle's hands.

this by no means cancels other arguments in favour of richard not being the killer. it's just a small contradiction i encountered that i intend to clarify.

[Prince_Lieven]

Well, if Elizabeth really and truly did NOT trust Richard, surely she would have resisted as much as she could, even physically, but there's no evidence of that.

I don't know how trustworthy Strickland's books are - apparently they're very good, but she tends to romanticise. I'm sure Kim'll know!

[Elisabeth]

Well, if Elizabeth really and truly did NOT trust Richard, surely she would have resisted as much as she could, even physically, but there's no evidence of that.

I don't know how trustworthy Strickland's books are - apparently they're very good, but she tends to romanticise. I'm sure Kim'll know!

Let's be real, Elizabeth was in no position to resist "physically." By the time she handed over her son, the Duke of York, she had been prevailed upon for hours, indeed days, by the hierarchy of the Church, who had bent all their gifts of persuasion toward convincing her that her son would be safe in Richard's hands. In doing so, they had made it perfectly clear that they were not prepared to use armed force to defend the rights of sanctuary; furthermore, they clearly thought she was being unreasonable and irrational in her fears of Richard.

So what was she supposed to do? The Church was not behind her, certainly the government was not behind her. They were all treating her like a madwoman. Should she then have gone ahead and completely discredited herself as a political player by defying all of them and making a futile attempt to shield her son with her own body from Richard's armed soldiers? Or is it more human to expect that she would have caved in to the overruling, majority opinion, the opinion of all the so-called experts of the time, that Richard would keep her son, the Duke of York, safe from harm?

[Prince_Lieven]

I would have the thought that the instinct of any mother would be to do everything she could to stop her children falling into dangerous hands.

[Elisabeth]

I would have the thought that the instinct of any mother would be to do everything she could to stop her children falling into dangerous hands.

Okay, Prince, let's say that Elizabeth had followed your advice. She tries to fight off Richard's soldiers physically. The soldiers, in the skirmish that follows, "accidentally" kill the little Duke of York hiding in her skirts. Gee. Mission accomplished. And so simply.

[Prince_Lieven]

I would have the thought that the instinct of any mother would be to do everything she could to stop her children falling into dangerous hands.

Okay, Prince, let's say that Elizabeth had followed your advice. She tries to fight off Richard's soldiers physically. The soldiers, in attacking her, "accidentally" kill the little Duke of York hiding in her skirts. Gee. Mission accomplished. And so simply.

It's not 'my' advice, it's just something I thought would've been instinctive for a mother.

[helenazar]

I would have the thought that the instinct of any mother would be to do everything she could to stop her children falling into dangerous hands.

Not all mothers, and not in all situations. You are very idealistic  .

[Prince_Lieven]

I would have the thought that the instinct of any mother would be to do everything she could to stop her children falling into dangerous hands.

Not all mothers, and not in all situations. You are very idealistic  .

First time I've ever been called that, but ok. 

[Elisabeth]

I would have the thought that the instinct of any mother would be to do everything she could to stop her children falling into dangerous hands.

Okay, Prince, let's say that Elizabeth had followed your advice. She tries to fight off Richard's soldiers physically. The soldiers, in attacking her, "accidentally" kill the little Duke of York hiding in her skirts. Gee. Mission accomplished. And so simply.

It's not 'my' advice, it's just something I thought would've been instinctive for a mother.

Except that any mother, in this terrible situation, which remember stretched out for weeks on end, would have had time to consider all the worst scenarios. Frankly, I have never understood this undercurrent of hostility to Elizabeth Woodville. It's as if, if a mother doesn't defend her male child tooth and claw, even at the high risk of costing the child his life, she's not worthy to be called a mother. But anyone who's a parent knows that it's far more complicated than that. You're always weighing up what would be better for your child, what would be the more risky option, what would be the lesser of the two evils, etc. And let's not forget that Elizabeth had her daughters' welfare to consider as well. She was stuck between a rock and a hard place. And let's face it, whatever she would have done in this situation would have been the wrong decision. She was damned if she did, and damned if she didn't.

[Prince_Lieven]

Thanks for stating that so cleary, Elisabeth, I understand and agree. Just for the record, I'm not hostile to Elizabeth Woodville - I find her extremely interesting.